US 9060562

I'll verify current status via search, then summarize from the authoritative patent text provided.

US Patent 9,060,562 B2 — Verification Summary

Important sourcing note up front: The patent body text you supplied reproduces the as-filed claim language (which matches the pre-amendment text in the Summary of the Invention). The granted claims 1, 8, and 16 were amended during prosecution (Amendment dated Dec. 15, 2014) and differ from that text. Where they differ, I flag it below. The claim wording I give for the granted claims comes from secondary full-text sources (Justia, RPX Insight, and Nike's own infringement contentions filed in Nike v. Skechers), not from a direct USPTO certified copy.

Bibliographic Data

Spelling caution (do not auto-correct): The granted patent's face lists the first inventor as "Adrain Meir"; the USPTO assignment record and some litigation documents spell it "Adrian Meir." Both spellings appear in the record.

Related family: US 9,032,763 B2 and US 9,420,844 B2 (both derived from the same 2014/2015 filings); foreign counterparts in EP (EP2961873B1), JP (JP6443993B2), KR (KR101861419B1), CN (CN105264133B), TW (TWI542749B), BR (BR112015020813B1), HK (HK1215458B), and WO 2014/134247 A1.

Abstract (verbatim)

"Methods of manufacturing a knitted component for an article of footwear that include knitting an upper with an integral knit tongue during a knitting process on a knitting machine are described. The knitting process forms the integral knit tongue of unitary knit construction with the upper so that the integral knit tongue extends through a throat area of the knitted component. The integral knit tongue can include raised elements formed of unitary knit construction with the tongue."

Independent Claims in Plain Language

Claim 1 — Single-machine knitting method. Knit part of a knitted component that defines an upper (the upper making up some of the outer and/or inner surface). Then knit an integral knit tongue that is of "unitary knit construction" with the upper, positioned in the throat area. The critical limitation (added by amendment): the tongue is joined by knitting — not by stitching or bonding — to (1) a forward portion of the throat area, and (2) at least along a portion of both the lateral side and the medial side of the throat area, extending through a portion of the throat's length in the longitudinal direction from that forward portion back toward the ankle opening. In other words, the tongue is anchored at the front of the throat and along both side edges as it runs toward the collar.

Claim 8 — Two-feeder method. Same end product and same "joined by knitting to forward portion + both sides" limitation, but the upper is knitted with two different feeders (one knits a first portion of the upper, the other knits a second portion), and the integral knit tongue is knit with at least one of those two feeders. This is the "the tongue is knit as part of the same upper-forming passes" concept.

Claim 16 — Three-feeder method. Same limitation, but now the upper is knit with a first feeder and a second feeder, and the integral knit tongue is knit with a third, dedicated feeder. This allows the tongue to be knit from a different yarn than the upper — dependent claim 17 recites the upper is a first type of yarn and the tongue a second, different type; claim 18 recites that the second type is an elastic yarn.

Practical gist of all three: The invention is a knitting process, not a product per se — integrating the tongue into the upper's knit so that the tongue is anchored at the front of the throat and knit-attached along both the medial and lateral throat edges up toward the ankle opening, rather than being cut and sewn in as a separate part. Dependent claims cover the raised lace-aperture elements (e.g., the lateral/medial raised flap structures of Figs. 5–7), partial-integral/free tongue portions held on the needles and later joined (claim 15), knit courses common to or continuous with the upper, and the elastic-yarn variant.

Prosecution History That Shaped the Claims (relevant to scope)

• Claims were rejected under §102(b) as anticipated by Dua et al., US 2008/0110048 (and a statutory double-patenting rejection over then-co-pending Ser. No. 14/273,683, which issued as US 9,032,763).
• Applicant amended claim 1 to require that the tongue be joined by knitting to the forward portion and along a portion of the length of both medial and lateral sides (not merely "stitched"), arguing Dua '048 only showed a central textile element stitched to lateral and medial elements.
• That amendment is the source of the "extending through a portion of a length of the throat area in a longitudinal direction" language in the granted claims. The pre-amendment wording in the patent body supplied to me reads "extending from the forward portion to an ankle opening" — that is the as-filed version, not the granted claim.

Litigation / PTAB / Docket Status (as of the current record)

I found no Federal Circuit 2026 docket specifically involving US 9,060,562. The 2026 CAFC items surfaced in searching were unrelated patents: Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc., No. 2026-1275 (appeal from IPR2024-00460, dismissed May 5, 2026), and the S.D.N.Y. matter Nike v. Lululemon, No. 1:23-cv-00771, CAFC No. 2025-1709 (mandate dismissing May 6, 2026). I state explicitly that I cannot confirm any 2026 CAFC proceeding naming the '562 patent.

Confirmed activity:

• PTAB — IPR2025-00150, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.: Petition filed Nov. 5, 2024, challenging claims 1–4 (Dua '592, Okamoto EP 2149629A1, Horii JP H3-3203, McDonald WO 98/43509, Calderone US 7,552,547). Institution DENIED June 9, 2025 (Paper 17, Panel: Barrett, Fitzpatrick, Meyers); terminated June 9, 2025. The Board found Skechers had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Google Patents flags this as "Not Instituted – Merits."
• **C.D. Cal. — Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:23-cv-09346-AB-PVC**: '562 is one of six asserted patents. The court granted an earlier stay, lifted it July 3, 2025 after the PTAB declined institution on the '562 and others, and then denied a renewed motion to stay on Oct. 7, 2025, noting the '562, '636, '511 and '781 patents would proceed regardless.
• **D. Mass. — Nike, Inc. v. New Balance Athletics, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-12666-JEK**: '562 asserted.
• ITC — Inv. No. 337-TA-1289 ("Certain Knitted Footwear"): the '562 patent is asserted in Nike's §337 complaint.
• D. Or. — No. 3:21-cv-01780: listed as a related litigated case.

Uncertainty Flags

1. Granted-claim text: taken from secondary databases (Justia, RPX) plus Nike's infringement contentions and the Dec. 2014 amendment; I do not have a certified USPTO copy in front of me. The wording of the "longitudinal direction" clause should be confirmed against the printed patent before being relied on for an infringement/validity opinion.
2. CAFC 2026: no docket tying US 9,060,562 to a 2026 Federal Circuit appeal was found; treat any such assertion as unverified.
3. Expiration: the 2032-07-10 "adjusted expiration" is Google Patents' assumption, not a legal conclusion, and does not account for any terminal disclaimer or later adjustment.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9060562.

Now let me dig deeper into each case and the PTAB proceedings.

Litigation Report — U.S. Patent No. 9,060,562 ("the '562 Patent")

Patent at issue: U.S. 9,060,562 B2, "Method of Knitting a Knitted Component with an Integral Knit Tongue." Appl. No. 13/781,551; filed Feb. 28, 2013; issued June 23, 2015; priority date Feb. 20, 2012 (CIP of Ser. No. 13/400,511). Patentee/assignee: Nike, Inc. (Beaverton, OR). Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9060562](/patent/US9060562)/en

Bottom line: Yes — litigation is known. The '562 Patent has been asserted by Nike in two pending U.S. district court actions (against Skechers and New Balance), is listed in the family's litigation data for a third (Adidas) action and an ITC investigation, and was the subject of one PTAB inter partes review (IPR2025-00150) that was denied institution. Note: the '562 Patent was not the patent that went to jury verdict in the Lululemon case (that was the '749 Patent — see caveat in §C below).

A. District Court Litigations — '562 Patent Asserted

Details — Nike v. Skechers (C.D. Cal. 2:23-cv-09346)

• Nike asserted six Flyknit patents, including the '562 Patent (asserted independent claim 1; Nike's complaint notes the '562 method claim is asserted under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g), i.e., products made abroad by the patented process).
• Accused products: Skechers Arch Fit, GO WALK, and Ultra Flex lines, among others.
• Claim-construction/Markman proceedings included disputes over "integral knit tongue," "raised element," "throat area," "ankle opening," and "unitary knit construction."
• Claim-construction hearing held Sept. 20, 2024 before Judge André Birotte Jr.; transcript at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1556912](/patent/1556912)/download-documents
• Stay history: case stayed Feb. 4, 2025 (ECF 97) pending the PTAB institution decisions; on June 23, 2025 the parties reported the PTAB declined to institute review of the '749, '781, '511, '562, and '636 patents; Skechers' motion for stay was denied Oct. 7, 2025 ("this action will need to proceed as to '562, '636, '511, and '781 Patents… the Motion is DENIED").
• Order (Oct. 7, 2025): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.[904555](/patent/904555)/gov.uscourts.cacd.904555.127.0.pdf

Details — Nike v. New Balance (D. Mass. 1:23-cv-12666)

• Nike asserted nine patents including the '562 Patent: Nos. 8,266,749; 8,898,932; 9,060,562; 9,510,636; 9,730,484; 9,907,350; 9,918,511; 9,924,758; and 11,707,105.
• New Balance's partial motion to dismiss (knit-to-cut vs. knit-to-shape) was denied Aug. 13, 2024.
• Stay granted June 6, 2025 pending seven IPR decisions (Mem. & Order, ECF 108); stay continued Aug. 22, 2025 pending Nike's appeal of the PTAB Final Written Decision holding the '749 Patent unpatentable; stay lifted May 19, 2026 after the parties' stipulation dismissing the '749 claims.
• Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67981637/nike-inc-v-new-balance-athletics-inc/

Related (adidas) actions in the '562 family litigation data: Google Patents' "Family has litigation" record for the '562 Patent lists, in addition to the two above, Nike, Inc. v. adidas-related proceedings: a U.S. District Court case in the District of Oregon (3:21-cv-01780) and ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1289. These were Nike's Dec. 2021/Jan. 2022 Flyknit enforcement actions, which reportedly settled in 2022. ⚠️ Caveat: I could not independently verify from the search results that the '562 Patent was specifically asserted in the Oregon action or the ITC investigation; the litigation data is aggregated at the patent-family level. Treat these two as "reported, not confirmed" for the '562 Patent specifically.

B. PTAB Proceeding — IPR2025-00150

• Outcome listed on Google Patents as "PTAB case IPR2025-00150 filed (Not Instituted - Merits)."
• Nike's Patent Owner Preliminary Response argued discretionary denial under § 325(d) and Fintiv (parallel C.D. Cal. litigation; Skechers' six-month delay), and that Skechers failed to show any reference teaching an "integral knit tongue." Petitioner's grounds relied primarily on U.S. Pub. 2005/0193592 (Dua-592), EP 2149629 A1 (Okamoto), JP H3-3203 (Horii), WO 98/43509 (McDonald), and U.S. 7,552,547 (Calderone).
• Petitions/decision documents: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1556911](/patent/1556911)/download-documents and case tracker https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2025-00150

Related sister IPRs (same petitioner, same litigation campaign, different patents — for context only): Skechers filed IPR2025-00141 ('749), -00142 ('484), -00143, -00144 ('511), -00150 ('562), and -00151 ('636). Per the C.D. Cal. joint status report, the PTAB declined to institute the petitions challenging the '749, '781, '511, '562, and '636 patents (June 23, 2025). Lululemon's IPRs (IPR2023-01460, IPR2024-00460) and New Balance's IPR2025-00020 concerned other patents in the family, not the '562.

C. Third Litigation Referenced in the '562 IPR Record — Nike v. Lululemon

• Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc., S.D.N.Y., 1:23-cv-00771-AS, filed Jan. 30, 2023.
• Nike's '562 IPR papers describe Nike as doing "triple duty" litigating against Skechers, New Balance, and lululemon simultaneously.
• Important caveat: The patents that reached trial/verdict in the Lululemon case were U.S. 8,266,749 ('749) and a second knitting patent (shown in the judgment as 9,735,046 / 9,375,046 — the docket text is inconsistent). Jury verdict March 7, 2025: $355,450 for infringement of the '749 Patent. On March 31, 2026, Judge Arun Subramanian granted lululemon's Rule 50(b) motion, held the '749 claims invalid for obviousness, and vacated the jury verdict. Nike's appeal deadline was late April 2026.
• ⚠️ I could not confirm from the retrieved results that the '562 Patent was asserted in the Lululemon complaint. Do not assume the '562 was at issue there.

D. Summary of Known '562 Outcomes

Methodology Notes / Limitations

• Searched Unified Patents litigation portal data, PTAB/PTActs filings, CourtListener/RECAP dockets, and legal press (Law360, VitalLaw, Reuters/WWD, SGI Europe).
• No U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appeal specifically on the '562 Patent was identified. (The Federal Circuit appeal referenced in the New Balance docket is Nike's appeal of the PTAB decision on the '749 Patent, a different patent.)
• Earlier Nike Flyknit suits — Nike v. Skechers (2016), Nike v. Puma (2018), Nike v. adidas (2021) — are frequently cited in the '562 IPR record as background, but I found no confirmation that the '562 Patent (which issued June 23, 2015) was asserted in the 2016 Skechers or 2018 Puma actions.
• Some docket entries retrieved postdate the April 26, 2026 date you specified (e.g., May 19, 2026 stay-lift order; Sept. 10, 2026 Markman setting); I have reported them as the sources state them rather than adjusting the dates.
• I did not auto-correct any patent or case identifiers; where the underlying documents contain inconsistent numbers (e.g., "9,735,046" vs. "9,375,046" in the Lululemon judgment), I have flagged the discrepancy rather than resolving it.

I'll verify the PTAB record for this patent, since the "PTAB proceedings on file" block and the patent's own Google Patents page conflict.

Let me check for any additional petitions (e.g., by New Balance) and any appeals.

⚠️ Reconciliation flag (read first)

The structured block "PTAB proceedings on file" stated: "The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent … the default should be 'no PTAB activity on file.'" That is contradicted by both (a) the authoritative patent text in this prompt and (b) the earlier-generated Patent Summary. The Google Patents page for US 9,060,562 itself carries the banner "PTAB case IPR2025-00150 filed (Not Instituted - Merits)." IPR2025-00150 is real, it is on the '562 patent, and it terminated by institution denial on 2025-06-09. I am treating the ODP "no proceedings" return as an ingest/indexing gap and reporting the verified proceeding below. The default "no PTAB activity" answer would be wrong for this patent.

A second, smaller contradiction worth flagging: the earlier Patent Summary described IPR2025-00150 as "challenging claims 1–4." The Petition actually challenged claims 1–23 (all claims); claims 1–4 were merely the scope of the two narrow § 102 anticipation grounds (1A and 2A). See the Board's own characterization below.

Proceedings overview

Total: one (1) AIA trial proceeding — IPR2025-00150 (Inter Partes Review), instituted: no; terminated by institution denial 2025-06-09. Zero claims canceled, zero claims adjudicated, zero Final Written Decisions, zero settlements, zero Federal Circuit appeals. No PGR, no CBM, no derivation. Bottom-line defensive posture: the patent is entirely untested and un-narrowed at the PTAB — no claim has been canceled and there is no estoppel — but the single merits denial is a meaningful road map, because the Board found the prior art simply does not disclose "an integral knit tongue." A defendant must solve that limitation, and the party who tried (Skechers) is now § 315(b) time-barred from trying again.

IPR2025-00150 — Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (AIA), Patent 9,060,562 B2, Tech Center 3700, Art Unit 3765.

• Filed: 2024-11-05 (one day inside Skechers' 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) bar date; Skechers was served in the C.D. Cal. action on 2023-11-06).

• Status: "Institution Denied" (terminated 2025-06-09). Statutory institution deadline was 2025-06-23; the Board ruled ~2 weeks early. Google Patents labels this "Not Instituted – Merits."

• Real parties in interest: Petitioner — Skechers U.S.A., Inc. Patent Owner — Nike, Inc.

• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Ken B. Barrett, Michael J. Fitzpatrick, and Matthew S. Meyers. Judge Barrett authored the decision (Paper 17, dated 2025-06-09).

• Counsel: Petitioner — Samuel Lu, Keith Orso, Jonathan Lindsay, Jie Gao (Irell & Manella LLP). Patent Owner — Michael J. Harris (lead, Reg. 62,957), Aaron P. Bowling, Michael S. Sebba (Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer); Matthew M. Wilk admitted pro hac vice as backup counsel only (order 2025-05-07).

• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1–23 on seven grounds, on §§ 102 and 103 only (no § 112 challenge — correct, as § 311(b) limits IPR to patents/printed publications):

Supporting evidence included declarations of Dr. Sabit Adanur (Ex. 1002) and Grant Delgatty (Ex. 1003).

Reference-identity caution (do not auto-correct): Nike's Preliminary Response refers to Calderone as "U.S. Patent No. 7,552,547," while the Board's own exhibit table lists Calderone as "US 7,624,518 B2." I am reproducing both as they appear in the record and flagging the discrepancy rather than choosing one. Similarly, note that Dua-592 (US 2005/0193592) is a different Dua family member than the "Dua et al., US 2008/0110048" cited in the earlier-generated prosecution-history section.

• Institution decision: DENIED (2025-06-09, Paper 17). The Board's own words: "Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the '562 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims." On the face of the decision, the denial rests on the § 314(a) merits threshold, not on discretionary denial:

  • Grounds 1A and 2A fail because neither Dua-592 nor Okamoto discloses "an integral knit tongue" — "Because Skechers does not demonstrate that the allegedly anticipating references disclose 'an integral knit tongue,' it has not met its burden."
  • Ground 2A fails independently as a matter of law because it combines multiple embodiments of a single reference (Net MoneyIN v. Verisign, 545 F.3d 1359).
  • The obviousness grounds (1B–1D, 2B–2C) fail because the secondary references do not cure the "integral knit tongue" gap, and Grounds 1D and 2C additionally fail for want of an articulated motivation to combine.
  • Nike had also pressed § 325(d) (Dua-592 and Okamoto had been cited/considered during prosecution) and Fintiv/§ 314(a) discretionary denial, and Skechers filed a Reply (2025-04-04) arguing all Fintiv factors favored institution because the C.D. Cal. case had been stayed. I could not confirm from the available text whether the Board reached those discretionary arguments; the denial as reported is merits-based. Do not overstate a Fintiv/§ 325(d) holding.

  Procedural record: POPR 2025-03-21; Skechers' Reply to POPR 2025-04-04; Nike sur-reply 2025-04-11; pro hac vice order 2025-05-07; denial 2025-06-09. Petitioner requested a fee refund 2025-07-16, approved by the Board 2025-07-17 — a practical signal Skechers accepted the loss rather than seeking further review.

• Final Written Decision: None issued. No claim was canceled, confirmed, or construed in a final, appealable decision. Any statement that IPR2025-00150 invalidated, narrowed, or preserved claims 1–23 is incorrect.

• Settlement / termination: No settlement. Terminated by the institution denial (2025-06-09); fee refund followed.

• Appeal: None — and none is available on this record. An institution denial under § 314(a) is "final and nonappealable" (Cuozzo; 35 U.S.C. § 314(d)), and there is no FWD to appeal under § 319. I found no Director Review request and no Federal Circuit docket naming this patent. Note for context only: the earlier-generated Patent Summary flagged Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon, No. 2026-1275 (Fed. Cir.), as an unrelated patent. Nothing about IPR2025-00150 is on appeal.

• Defensive value: This proceeding did not damage the patent, but it did map the wall. The Board (and the earlier prosecution) both turned on the same limitation — a knit-joined ("integral") tongue. Skechers' art failed because neither reference disclosed an "integral knit tongue"; Nike successfully distinguished its disclosure (e.g., a tongue whose top end extends beyond the adjacent ankle-opening periphery, or a partially-integral/free tongue as in Figs. 10–12). Any future invalidity theory that does not squarely disclose a tongue knit-joined to the forward throat and along both the medial and lateral throat edges is likely to meet the same fate. The corollary benefit to a defendant: the denial creates no § 315(e)(2) estoppel, and Skechers never tendered a Sotera stipulation, so the same art remains available in the district courts.

Strategic summary

Claim-by-claim status of US 9,060,562. Per the USPTO and the Board, the patent has three independent claims (1, 8, 16) and twenty dependent claims (2–7, 9–15, 17–23), for 23 total. Because institution was denied, the status is uniform and unambiguous: claims 1–23 are all SUSTAINED-by-default / UNTESTED. None is canceled. None has been held unpatentable. None has been held patentable in a final decision either. There is no "surviving claims" list to give a defendant a narrowed target — the full claim set remains live. For claim-charting purposes, note the granted claim 1 as quoted by the Board: "wherein the integral knit tongue is joined by knitting with the knitting machine to: (1) a forward portion of the throat area, and (2) at least along a portion of both of a lateral side and a medial side of the throat area of the knitted component extending through a portion of a length of the throat area in a longitudinal direction from the forward portion to an ankle opening of the upper." This confirms the earlier-generated caveat that the body text supplied in this prompt shows as-filed language rather than the granted claim.

Estoppel landscape. Because no FWD ever issued, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel never triggered for anyone. Skechers (and its privies) are not barred in the C.D. Cal. action from re-asserting Dua-592, Okamoto, McDonald, Horii, or Calderone — and Nike itself complained in the POPR that Skechers offered no Sotera stipulation, so there is no contractual preclusion either. The practical consequence: the invalidity case in Nike v. Skechers (C.D. Cal. 2:23-cv-09346-AB-PVC) and Nike v. New Balance (D. Mass. 1:23-cv-12666-JEK) proceeds on the full prior-art record. Conversely, a new petitioner attacking '562 at the PTAB would face steep discretionary-denial risk under § 325(d) (the same/similar art already considered by the Examiner, per the POPR record), General Plastic/Valve follow-on factors, and Fintiv — especially after the C.D. Cal. court lifted its stay on 2025-07-03 and then denied Skechers' renewed stay motion on 2025-10-07 (Dkt. 127), reasoning that the '562, '636, '511 and '781 patents — "over 80% of the claims asserted" — would have to proceed regardless.

§ 315(b) is now the decisive gate for the current defendants. Both known litigants were served in late 2023 (Skechers 2023-11-06; New Balance 2023-11-06). Skechers used its one-year window (filing 2024-11-05, one day early); New Balance did not petition on '562 at all — its only petition was IPR2025-00020 on the '932 patent. With no instituted IPR on '562, there was never anything to join (37 C.F.R. § 42.122), and the § 315(b) one-year clocks have run. Net: no currently sued defendant can now file a timely IPR against '562. The PTAB door for the in-suit defendants is effectively closed, which shifts the entire '562 fight into the district courts.

Pattern signals and cross-proceeding context. Skechers mounted a coordinated six-petition campaign against Nike's knit- footwear family — IPR2025-00141 ('749), -00142 ('484), -00143 ('781), -00144 ('511), -00150 ('562), and -00151 ('636) — and the Board denied institution across the board in June 2025 (2025-06-20/2025-06-23 window), which is why the C.D. Cal. stay dissolved. Nike's PTAB posture here is aggressive and successful at the threshold stage; lululemon's separate IPRs did take down the '484 patent (FWD 2025-03-21) and obtained an unpatentability finding on '749 (now at Director Review/appeal), so Nike is by no means invulnerable family-wide — but the '562 patent specifically has come through clean. I found no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) in the chain of this proceeding; the petitioner is a competitor, Skechers, not a PAE. Of note for 2026: the D. Mass. docket reflects a 2026-09-03 notice of supplemental authority attaching Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., indicating continued claim-construction activity in the parallel cases; I did not verify the substance of that ruling.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not tell anyone claim 1 (or any claim) is dead. There is no FWD, no cancellation, and no estoppel. If you are a defendant, the assertion record is fully intact: Nike asserts at least claim 1 of the '562 patent against, e.g., the New Balance FuelCell SuperComp Elite v3 and Skechers knit product lines. Quote the denial honestly: the Board said only that Skechers "has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing" — that is a burden-of-proof loss at the threshold, not a validity holding, and it is nonappealable.
2. Weaponize the denial as a roadmap, not as relief. The Board's rationale — the art does not teach "an integral knit tongue" — tells you exactly where to aim a district-court § 102/§ 103 case. You will need prior art that (a) shows the tongue as an identifiable knit structure continuous with the upper (Nike's POPR points to a tongue top extending past the ankle-opening periphery, or the partially-integral/free tongue of Figs. 10–12), and (b) places the tongue knit-joined to the forward throat and along both medial and lateral throat edges, not merely stitched or inserted. The POPR also shows Nike leaning hard on the prosecution history and a narrow reading of "tongue"; expect a § 112/prosecution-history-estoppel fight over that term (the C.D. Cal. court has already ordered supplemental briefing on the plain meaning of "tongue").
3. Exploit the freedom from estoppel in district court. Because § 315(e)(2) never attached, the full Skechers art set — Dua-592, Okamoto, McDonald, Horii, Calderone — plus anything else is fair game in the litigations. Conversely, if you are not already a party and are considering a petition, budget for a § 325(d) + General Plastic + Fintiv fight: the primary references were before the Examiner, the litigation is now unstayed and advanced, and the Board already found the merits wanting.
4. Watch the parallel proceedings, not the PTAB, for movement on '562. The C.D. Cal. case was unstayed 2025-07-03 and a renewed stay was denied 2025-10-07 (order at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.[904555](/patent/904555)/gov.uscourts.cacd.904555.127.0.pdf ). The D. Mass. case's fact discovery closed 2025-12-19, with expert discovery through March 2026. There is no PTAB institution decision, oral hearing, or FWD date outstanding for '562 — nothing to calendar at the Board.
5. Verify the FWD/decision text against USPTO PTAB E2E before relying on it (case IPR2025-00150; petition materials at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1556911](/patent/1556911) ; Paper 17 text reproduced at https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/68478e5e7e0d61261c857c88 ). Specifically, confirm (i) that Paper 17 denied solely on § 314(a) merits and did not separately reach Fintiv / § 325(d), and (ii) the Calderone reference number (7,552,547 vs. 7,624,518) — the two documents in the record disagree, and I have not resolved which is correct.

I'll research the assignment record and ownership chain for this patent.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 9,060,562 B2

Retrieval note (read first): I was able to confirm that an inventor-to-Nike assignment exists for this patent (via Google Patents legal events), but my session tooling did not surface a citable reel/frame number, execution date, or correspondent of record for it. Rather than reconstruct those fields from memory, I have left them marked not captured and flagged the gap. Every other factual statement below is sourced. Do not treat any blank field as "no record" — it means not verified here.

Inventors

• All three are Nike-based footwear/knit engineers and all three are named as assignors to NIKE, INC. on the recorded assignment (Google Patents legal events, event dated 2013-07-17: "NIKE, INC. ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST… Assignors: PODHAJNY, DANIEL A., MEIR, ADRIAN, TATLER, DAREN P."). This is a routine employee-invention assignment, not an inventor-held portfolio being shopped.
• Cross-reference: the same three inventors appear with Bhupesh Dua, Bruce Huffa, and Benjamin A. Shaffer on the parent case, Ser. No. 13/400,511 — the Nike Flyknit family.
• Unusual-pattern check: no evidence of any inventor departing Nike within 12 months of filing. Meir, Podhajny, and Tatler all continue to appear as Nike inventors on later knit-upper filings (e.g., Podhajny on US 8,997,530). No "abandoned-inventor / fire-sale precursor" signal.

Spelling caveat (carried over, not corrected): the printed patent lists "Adrain Meir"; the assignment record and litigation filings spell it "Adrian Meir." Both appear in the official record.

Original assignee

NIKE, Inc. (One Bowerman Drive, Beaverton, OR 97005) — named as both Original Assignee and Current Assignee on the granted patent face and on Google Patents.

• Product embodying the claims: Yes, unambiguously. This patent is in the Flyknit family; the disclosed knitted component with an integral knit tongue corresponds to Nike's Flyknit footwear uppers (Nike's own IPR exhibit EX2002 is titled "Nike — Sustainability and Innovation through Flyknit Technology"). Nike has marketed and sold Flyknit-based footwear continuously since 2012.
• Primary line of business: athletic footwear, apparel, and equipment (NYSE: NKE).
• Current status: operating — no bankruptcy, no dissolution, no IP-holding-company roll-up of this asset.
• Secondary note: Nike does route a large share of its later knit-upper family into NIKE Innovate C.V. (a Dutch limited partnership used as Nike's holding vehicle). I found no recorded assignment of US 9,060,562 to NIKE Innovate C.V., and both Google Patents and the litigation captions continue to name Nike, Inc. as the patent owner/plaintiff. Treat the Innovate C.V. line as a family-level observation only, unverified for this patent.

Assignment timeline

Per the Google Patents legal-events record, the only recorded conveyance touching US 9,060,562 is the original inventor → Nike assignment. There is no post-issuance transfer of any kind.

• Executed: date not captured in this session / recorded 2013-07-17 — Reel not captured / Frame not captured
  • Conveyance: Assignment (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST)
  • Assignor: Daniel A. Podhajny; Adrian Meir; Daren P. Tatler (all of Oregon)
  • Assignee: NIKE, INC., Beaverton, OR
  • Correspondent: not captured in this session — flag for follow-up, because for Nike the recording correspondent is typically Nike's in-house IP docketing group or a single outside firm (e.g., Banner & Witcoff), and confirming that here would establish whether any later Nike knit-family recording departs from that pattern.
  • Context: Internal employee-invention assignment — routine perfection of title for an application filed Feb. 28, 2013; not an acquisition, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.

No further assignments are recorded through the issue date (2015-06-23) or at any time thereafter. This is itself a substantive finding: absent a record, Nike, Inc. remains the record owner, which is consistent with Nike appearing as plaintiff/patent owner in every proceeding below.

Follow-up link for verification (fields above are populated there): USPTO Assignment Center / USPTO Patent Assignment Search — query 9060562; mirror at Google Patents legal events.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9060562
    2012 : Priority date from parent case
    2013 : CIP application filed by Nike inventors
    2013 : Inventors assign rights to Nike Inc
    2015 : Patent issued to Nike Inc
    2023 : Nike asserts patent against Skechers
    2023 : Nike asserts patent against New Balance
    2024 : Skechers files IPR2025-00150
    2025 : PTAB denies institution of review

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Supporting litigation/PTAB record (context for signals 2, 5, 7):

• PTAB IPR2025-00150, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc. — filed Nov. 5, 2024; challenged claims 1–4 over Dua '592, Okamoto EP 2149629A1, Horii JP H3-3203, McDonald WO 98/43509, Calderone US 7,552,547. Institution denied June 9, 2025, terminated same day.
• C.D. Cal. 2:23-cv-09346-AB-PVC, Nike v. Skechers; D. Mass. 1:23-cv-12666-JEK, Nike v. New Balance; ITC 337-TA-1289 ("Certain Knitted Footwear"); D. Or. 3:21-cv-01780 (related).
• Notably, Skechers' own petition concedes the '562 patent is a Nike-originated asset ("Nike's own prior publications and patents") — the challenge is anticipation/obviousness by Nike's own earlier work, i.e., a validity fight between operating companies, not an NPE shakedown.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Nike, Inc. — the original and current record owner, per the sole recorded assignment (recorded 2013-07-17, reel/frame not captured in this session) — ships Flyknit footwear that embodies the claims and is litigating the '562 patent directly against actual competitors (Skechers in C.D. Cal. 2:23-cv-09346; New Balance in D. Mass. 1:23-cv-12666; and at the ITC in 337-TA-1289). All eight NPE signals are absent, and five of them cannot even be evaluated as "present" because there is no second link in the chain. The absence of any post-issuance assignment is the decisive fact: with no transfer to record, there is no opportunity for shell-entity, cascading, pre-litigation, or privateering conduct, and the patent remains in the hands of the operating inventor-employer.

Verification link: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search 9060562); corroborating legal-events timeline at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9060562B2](/patent/US9060562B2)/en#legalEvents

Open item to close before relying on this as a final ownership opinion: (1) pull the reel/frame for the 2013-07-17 recording and (2) capture the correspondent of record on that recording — not because an NPE signal is suspected, but because the correspondent is the field that would reveal a later Nike knit-family transfer if one were ever recorded under a non-Google-indexed reel.

I'll research the specific patent and its cited prior art.

Let me get the patent's front-page references directly.

Let me try to retrieve the front-page "References Cited" list directly.

I hit my search-step limit before retrieving the USPTO/Google Patents front page "References Cited" list verbatim for US 9,060,562. Rather than fabricate that list, here is what I can ground in the sources I actually retrieved, with the gaps and contradictions flagged explicitly.

Prior Art Analysis — US 9,060,562 B2

Patent: US 9,060,562 B2, "Method of Knitting a Knitted Component with an Integral Knit Tongue" — Appl. No. 13/781,551, filed Feb. 28, 2013, issued June 23, 2015, priority Feb. 20, 2012 (CIP of Ser. No. 13/400,511). Assignee Nike, Inc.

Sourcing caveat (read first)

1. I could not retrieve the printed front-page "(56) References Cited" table for the '562 patent itself. My searches returned the equivalent tables for other patents in the Nike Flyknit family (e.g., US 9,907,349, US 10,182,619, US 9,848,673) and the search reports for unrelated cases. I am therefore not representing the list below as the certified examiner citation list of US 9,060,562.
2. What follows is drawn from (a) the prosecution history summarized in the prior analysis (Dua '048 anticipation rejection), and (b) the prior art of record in IPR2025-00150 (Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.), where the '562 patent is the challenged patent and each reference was mapped to specific claims. Those sources identify references actually applied against the '562 claims.
3. Contradiction to flag: the earlier summary described the IPR reference as WO 98/43509 (McDonald); the IPR2025-00150 exhibit list I retrieved (ipverse.greyb.com, EX1016) reads WO 1998/043506 A1. The two-digit discrepancy is unresolved — treat the exact McDonald number as unverified and do not auto-correct either value.

A. References applied during prosecution of the '562 application

A1. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0110048 A1 — Dua et al.

• Citation: US 2008/0110048 A1 (Dua, Bhupesh et al.), published May 15, 2008; filed Nov. 9, 2006.
• Description: Knitted shoe upper in which a central textile element is positioned between lateral and medial textile elements; the central element has a forward portion located in the throat area. Nike-family art that pre-dates the '562 priority date.
• §102 posture: The '562 claims were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by Dua '048. Applicant overcame by amendment, arguing Dua '048 shows a central textile element that is stitched to the lateral/medial elements, not "joined by knitting," and is not anchored by knitting to the forward portion plus both throat sides. Potentially anticipatory as to original (as-filed) claims 1 and 8 if the "joined by knitting" limitation were read broadly; satisfied only via §103-type reasoning against the granted claims as construed narrowly.

A2. Co-pending Ser. No. 14/273,683 — issued as US 9,032,763 B2 (Nike)

• Citation: US 9,032,763 B2 (same family; downloaded/continuation of the '551 family), issued May 19, 2015.
• Description: Sibling Nike application to the same subject matter.
• §102/§103 posture: Rejected for statutory double patenting (not §102 anticipation). Relevant only as a same-family/ODP matter, presumptively overcome by a terminal disclaimer. Not third-party art.

A3. Applicant-admitted / incorporated references (not examiner art, but citable under §301)

• U.S. Pub. 2010/0154256 (Ser. No. 12/338,726, Dua et al., filed Dec. 18, 2008) — "Article of Footwear Having an Upper Incorporating a Knitted Component."
• U.S. Pub. 2012/0233882 (Ser. No. 13/048,514, Huffa et al., filed Mar. 15, 2011) — "Article of Footwear Incorporating a Knitted Component."
• Both are expressly incorporated by reference into the '562 specification ("Inlaid Strand cases") and are prior art to the '562 claims (published before Feb. 20, 2012 in the case of 2010/0154256). They teach the inlaid-strand/tensile-element knit structures recited in dependent claims (e.g., the lace-loop variants).
• Parent Ser. No. 13/400,511 (filed Feb. 20, 2012) — the CIP parent. Not art against '562 (common ownership / same priority chain), but it defines the effective priority date.

B. Prior art of record in IPR2025-00150 (Skechers v. Nike) — the operative §102/§103 analysis on the '562 claims

These are the references the Board actually weighed against claims 1–23. Institution was DENIED June 9, 2025, so none was adjudicated to invalidate — but this is the most probative modern prior-art mapping available.

B1. U.S. Pub. 2005/0193592 A1 — Dua (a/k/a "Dua-592")

• Citation: US 2005/0193592 A1 (Dua), published Sept. 8, 2005; priority 2005. (Google Patents lists it with CPC A43B 1/04.)
• Description: Knitted textile footwear element formed as a "single, unitary element of material" (¶0037, 0055) with zones of different textures 46″–48″, the third texture in the instep/throat region.
• §102 posture — primary anticipatory reference:
  • Claims 1–4 — asserted anticipatory (Ground 1A).
  • Claims 8–14 and 16–23 — asserted obvious over Dua-592 alone (Ground 1B), because the "first/second/third feeder" limitations were met by routine V-bed feeder knowledge.
  • Claims 5–7, 15 — asserted obvious over Dua-592 + McDonald and/or Horii (Ground 1C).
• Weakness the Board identified: the tongue must be a structure distinct from the upper extending through the throat; the Board was "not persuaded" that Dua-592 (or Okamoto) discloses the recited integral knit tongue, and denied institution.

B2. EP 2149629 A1 — Okamoto

• Citation: European Patent Publication EP 2 149 629 A1 (Okamoto), published Feb. 3, 2010. (IPR Exhibit EX1015.)
• Description: Seamlessly-knitted footwear having a knitted upper 80 (Fig. 8) with surfaces 83/87 spanning the throat/instep.
• §102 posture: Asserted anticipatory of claims 1–4 (Ground 2A); obviousness of claims 5–23 with Dua-592 (Ground 2B). Rejected by the Board — no showing that a person of ordinary skill would discern a distinct tongue.

B3. JP Utility Model H3-3203 — Horii ("Horii")

• Citation: Japanese Utility Model publication, Heisei 3 (1991) — JP-U H03-3203 (IPR Exhibit EX1017, "JPU-1991003203_EN"). Year: 1991.
• Description: Knitting-machine tongue construction.
• §102/§103 posture: Secondary reference for claims 5–7 and 15 (the partially-integral/free-portion and raised-element features), in combination with Dua-592 — §103, not standalone §102.

B4. McDonald

• Citation (contradicted — see caveat): WO 98/43509 (per prior analysis) vs. WO 1998/043506 A1 (per IPR exhibit list EX1016). Both dated 1998. Treat exact number as unverified.
• Description: Knitted tongue/upper construction.
• §102/§103 posture: Combined with Dua-592 and/or Horii for claims 5–7, 15 — §103.

B5. Calderone — U.S. Patent 7,552,547 (per petition text); exhibit list shows "Calderone US762…"

• Citation: US 7,552,547 B1 (Calderone), issued June 30, 2009 — with a discrepancy vs. the exhibit list's "US762…" string. Verify the exact number.
• Description: Raised lace flaps / lace openings.
• §102/§103 posture: Used to add "raised elements with lace openings" to Dua-592 (limitation 1[c]-type features) — §103. The Board held this addition did not create a distinct tongue.

B6. Pre-1930 patents used in Skechers' preliminary invalidity contentions (litigation, not the IPR grounds)

• US 2,147,197 (Glidden) — issued Feb. 14, 1939 (IPR Exhibit EX2010).
• US 2,440,393 (Clark) — issued April 27, 1948 (IPR Exhibit EX2011).
• §102 posture: Standalone anticipation charts were filed in the C.D. Cal. invalidity contentions ("562-1 Glidden," "562-5 Clark"). These are only as strong as their disclosure of a knitted integral tongue; on their face they are pre-knitting-technology footwear pat

I'll research the prior-art references from this patent's record before analyzing.

Now let me pull details on the specific prior-art references themselves.

Obviousness Analysis — US 9,060,562 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Sourcing note. This analysis is built on (a) the authoritative patent text supplied for the '562 patent, and (b) the prior-art references actually asserted against this patent in the record — principally the petition and exhibits in IPR2025‑00150, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc., and the references the Examiner cited during prosecution of the '562. I flag verbatim where I could not confirm a reference's contents.

Dating inconsistency (flagged): your task header states April 26, 2026, while my system date is September 30, 2026. Nothing in this analysis turns on the difference (all events relied on occurred on or before October 7, 2025).

1. Framework and claim scope

Applicable law. The '562 was filed February 28, 2013 as a CIP of Ser. No. 13/400,511 (filed Feb. 20, 2012), so the pre‑AIA version of § 103 governs. Every reference below qualifies as prior art under pre‑AIA § 102(b) (all published more than one year before Feb. 28, 2013), as Petitioner itself stated (Petition, "The asserted grounds rely on the following references, each of which is prior art to the '562 patent under pre‑AIA §102(b)").

POSITA. A person of ordinary skill would be someone with a bachelor's degree in textile engineering or mechanical engineering (or equivalent experience) plus 2–4 years of experience in programming and operating flat-bed knitting machines for footwear uppers, or alternatively a knitting-machine technician/designer with equivalent practical experience — i.e., a person fluent in V-bed flat knitting with multiple feeders, knit-type selection (jersey, purl, rib, double-jersey, half-gauge), yarn selection, and transfer/jacquard techniques.

The controlling limitation. The granted independent claims 1, 8 and 16 all end with the amendment-driven limitation (verbatim from the petition's claim table, which reproduces the granted text):

"wherein the integral knit tongue is joined by knitting with the knitting machine to: (1) a forward portion of the throat area, and (2) at least along a portion of both of a lateral side and a medial side of the throat area of the knitted component extending through a portion of a length of the throat area in a longitudinal direction from the forward portion to an ankle opening of the upper."

This language was added to escape the Examiner's Dua '048 rejection (US 2008/0110048), which showed a central element stitched between lateral and medial elements. Any viable § 103 case must therefore show (i) a tongue-like knit region in the throat that is (ii) knit-attached along a forward edge and along both throat side edges, not sewn.

2. Prior art inventory

Flags / corrections to the earlier-generated section

1. Claim count challenged: the earlier section said IPR2025‑00150 challenged "claims 1–4." The petition's own headings show Grounds 1A–1D and 2A–2B addressing claims 1–23. Correction noted.
2. McDonald identifier: the Google Patents litigation summary lists "McDonald WO 98/43509," while the petition's exhibit list reads EX1016 = WO 98/43506 ("McDonald"). I am relaying both literally and do not auto-correct either.
3. Granted-claim text: the earlier "uncertainty flag #1" (claim wording taken from secondary sources) is now reduced — the granted claim 1[d], 8 and 16 text is confirmed by the petition's reproduction of the patent, which matches the earlier description.
4. Possible error in the earlier section: it stated that "dependent claims cover the raised lace-aperture elements." In the granted claim set as reproduced in the petition (claims 1–23), the dependent claims run: 2 (flat knitting machine), 3–4 (common yarn / joining course), 5–7 and 15 (partially integral + free portion), 8–14 and 16–23 (two- and three-feeder limitations, yarn types, continuous courses, exterior/interior surfaces). No '562 claim appears to recite "raised elements" — raised-element claims appear to live in the sibling '636 patent. Treat the earlier statement as unverified.

3. Combinations that render the claims obvious

Ground A — Okamoto in view of Dua‑956 (strongest case for claim 1)

• Okamoto supplies the method architecture the claim recites. It expressly teaches knitting a footwear upper seamlessly on a flat knitting machine: knit a first face, knit side faces "into cylinders," knit a further face "individually in the middle of the cylinders," and join it with the side surfaces, using bind-off where appropriate. Mapped to claim 1: knit the upper (element 1[a]–[b]); knit an integral knit portion in the throat that is unitary with the upper (1[c]); and join it by knitting to a forward portion and along the laterally and medially flanking surfaces (1[d]) — because Okamoto's joined face is bounded on both left and right by the cylinder side faces and attached to them by stitch formation, not sewing.
• Dua‑956 supplies the "tongue" identity and location. Its forward portion 61 is expressly "primarily located in a throat area of footwear 10," is ribbed so that it "stretches to a different degree" than adjacent portions, and is formed as one piece with center/rearward portions. That is precisely the "integral knit tongue extending through a throat area" element under any construction narrower than Nike's broadest apparent reading.
• Why combine. Both are flat-bed/double-bed knitting methods for footwear uppers; both target seam-free, post-processing-free uppers (Okamoto: "post-processing … unnecessary"; Dua‑956 and its Nike siblings: "By decreasing the number of elements and materials utilized in an upper, waste may be decreased while increasing the efficiency of manufacture and recyclability" — language the '562 Background copies nearly verbatim). A POSITA seeking a knit upper with a tongue that does not have to be cut and sewn in would predictably apply Okamoto's seamless mid-cylinder joining technique to the throat-area knit region Dua‑956 already describes. Result: predictable, with no change in the principle of operation of either reference.

Ground B — Dua‑592 alone, or Dua‑592 in view of Dua‑956

• Dua‑592 already recites the whole product-side story in method terms: a textile element knit on a knitting machine, unitary and one-piece, forming the upper including the instep region, with the instep-area knit region having different stretch and wear properties by virtue of stitch and yarn selection. If "integral knit tongue" is construed as broadly as Nike's apparent infringement position (any knit region in the throat/instep area formed of unitary knit construction), Dua‑592 alone renders claim 1 obvious; the only arguable gap is whether the throat region is joined "along both sides" — which is inherent in a single unitary knit element knit in successive courses (Petition, Elements 1[c]–1[d]).
• If a narrower construction requires a structurally distinct tongue, Dua‑956 closes the gap by expressly identifying a ribbed, differentially-stretching knit portion located in the throat. Both references are commonly owned Nike/Kim-family work (same field, same assignee, Dua as common inventor), which is itself a recognized motivation to combine.

Ground C — Okamoto / Dua‑956 in further view of Horii and McDonald (claims 5–7, 15)

• Claims 5–7 and 15 require a tongue with a partially integral portion (knit to the upper at the forward portion and along both sides) and a free portion (unitary with the partially integral portion but unattached to the rest of the upper, held on the needles while the upper is knit, then joined at a rearward portion).
• Okamoto teaches exactly this sequencing: some surfaces are knit individually (i.e., formed while other structures are held/not yet joined), and are later joined — the same "knit it, hold it, knit more, then join" paradigm. Horii supplies the reason to leave a rearward portion free/expansible: its purl-stitch upper "increase[s] vertical-direction stretching … suitable for people having a high instep," i.e., a knit structure chosen to enlarge the throat/ankle opening region. McDonald is asserted by Petitioner for the same free-portion/knit-then-join features (Ground 1C); I cannot verify its text, so I assign it low weight here.
• Why combine. The '562's own specification links the free portion to "allow[ing] a larger ankle opening" — a purely functional objective that Horii expressly addresses. A POSITA would adopt the hold-on-needles/join-later technique to obtain the opening without a seam.

Ground D — Any of the above in view of Calderone (the lacing/raised-flap aspect)

• The '562's Summary and Abstract advertise "raised elements providing lace apertures for a lacing system," and Figs. 5–7 show lateral/medial raised elements 514/515 with lace apertures 700. Calderone discloses upper side edges 48/52 that rise above and overhang the tongue on both sides of a throat opening, with the tongue "position[ed] … beneath the upper left side 44 and the upper right side 46," plus an elastic band through tongue slots. That is the same structural idea as a knitted raised flap with a lace passage, in a non-knit upper.
• Why combine. Once the upper is knit (Dua‑592/956, Okamoto, Horii), forming the lace-retaining flap as an integral knit upstanding element is a routine substitution of one known technique for another to achieve the known result of a laced upper with a smooth, seam-free tongue — and it is expressly motivated by the '562's own stated benefit of reducing "seams or other discontinuities" for comfort.

Ground E — The "two-feeder" and "three-feeder" claims (8–14, 16–23)

• These claims add only which feeder knits what, plus (claims 17–18) that the tongue is a second, different type of yarn, optionally elastic.
• Dua‑592 expressly teaches that yarn type may be varied area-by-area "to impart different properties," including degree of stretch and wear resistance. Horii teaches purl-stitch/thick-yarn choices for stretch and cushioning. Calderone teaches an elastic element for enlarging the forefoot opening. Multi-feeder V-bed flat knitting is the ordinary mode of operation of the machine described in the '562 itself (standard feeders 1720 and combination feeders 1722), and the '562 expressly incorporates the "Inlaid Strand cases" — U.S. Pub. 2010/0154256 (Dua) and U.S. Pub. 2012/0233882 (Huffa) — as disclosing inlaid-strand/multi-feed knitting for footwear uppers, as well as Ser. No. 13/400,511 (the '562's own parent, which issued as US 8,448,474 B1 per the EP 2,817,442 A2 record).
• Why combine. Assigning a dedicated feeder to the tongue region is the direct, predictable way to give the tongue a different yarn than the upper — a "finite number of well-known techniques … in a predictable manner," especially where the same specification describes exactly that multi-feeder hardware.

Ground F — Claim 18 (elastic tongue yarn)

Horii's express teaching that knit structure can be selected to "increase vertical-direction stretching … suitable for people having a high instep," Dua‑956's ribbed, more-stretchable forward portion 61, and Calderone's elastic band 92 all point one way: use elastic yarn/knit in the throat/tongue region so the opening can stretch. Claim 18 is the weakest of the set on obviousness grounds.

4. Articulated motivations (KSR-style)

1. Same field, same problem, overlapping disclosure. All references address knitted or knit-based footwear uppers and the assembly of a tongue/opening region. Dua‑592, Dua‑956, Huffa and Greene are commonly owned Nike family art.
2. Express problem statement shared by the references and the '562. Manufacturing efficiency, waste reduction and recyclability (Dua‑956; US 2010/0154256; Okamoto's "no post-processing") are the very justifications recited in the '562 Background.
3. Predictable result. Knitting the tongue as part of the upper rather than cutting/stitching it is a substitution of a known seamless-knitting technique for a known cut-and-sew step, producing the expected benefit (fewer seams, less labor).
4. Teaching away is absent. Nothing in Dua‑592, Dua‑956, Okamoto, Horii or Calderone criticizes integrating the tongue into the upper knit.

5. Counterweight — why this is not an open-and-shut case (be candid)

• The Board denied institution. In IPR2025‑00150, the Panel (Barrett, Fitzpatrick, Meyers) denied institution on June 9, 2025 (Paper 17), concluding Petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Its stated reasons included: (i) Dua‑592 does not disclose "an integral knit tongue" (Ground 1A fails); (ii) Okamoto's anticipation theory "fails as a matter of law" (Ground 2A); and (iii) under Advanced Bionics, step one of § 325(d) was met — the asserted art is the same or substantially the same as art already before the Examiner — and Petitioner failed step two by never alleging material Examiner error ("the word 'error' does not appear anywhere in the Petition").
• Important nuance: a § 314(a)/§ 325(d) denial is not a holding that the claims are non-obvious. The § 325(d) rationale turns on prosecution-cleanliness, not on the merits of a properly framed § 103 combination. But a litigant advancing the Ground A/C combinations above must supply what the petition did not: a precise element-by-element showing that the joined-by-knitting-to-both-throat-sides limitation is actually met, rather than resting on "unitary knit construction implies joined by knitting."
• The narrowest genuine gap. The best non-obviousness argument for Nike is that no single reference, and no combination, teaches a tongue that is (a) anatomically a tongue, and (b) knit-attached continuously along both throat side margins over a longitudinal length of the throat, rather than merely being an area of a one-piece knit. Okamoto's mid-cylinder surface joined to both flanking side surfaces (Fig. 4 upper face 30 joined to sides 34/35; Fig. 8 surface 85 joined with 84, 86) is the closest thing in the record to closing that gap — so the strongest § 103 case is Okamoto + Dua‑956 → + Calderone → + Horii, not the Dua‑592-centric case the Board rejected.
• Unverified items that I will not overstate: the exact text of McDonald (and its correct number), the exact column cites for Calderone (the petition cites 2:44–53 and 3:17–24; the sibling US 7,877,901 carries near-identical text, and I could not verify which patent bears those exact columns), and the full text of Horii ("JP H3‑3203" — the identifier as recorded is unusual and may denote a Japanese utility model rather than a laid-open application). The CN 101680138 A document is the Chinese counterpart of Okamoto (Shima Seiki; inventor 冈本一良/Okamoto) and can serve as a corroborating copy.
• Objective evidence. No secondary-consideration record (nexus-based commercial success, copying, industry praise) was found in the sources reviewed. The extensive litigation/ITC activity around the Nike knit family is evidence of commercial significance but not, standing alone, of non-obviousness.

6. Bottom line

My assessment: the claims are vulnerable to a well-constructed § 103 challenge anchored on Okamoto as the primary reference, because Okamoto supplies both the seamless footwear-upper method and the "knit a face in the middle of flanking surfaces and join it" geometry that the '562's amendment made the point of novelty. The Dua‑592-centric theory that the Board rejected is materially weaker than an Okamoto-primary theory with Dua‑956 as the tongue-identifying secondary reference. That said, the Board's June 9, 2025 denial and the absence of any merits ruling mean the § 103 question for the '562 remains legally open, and any opinion-grade conclusion should be reached only after verifying the full text of Horii and McDonald and confirming the Mcdonald/Calderone citations above against certified copies.